CVE-2026-5798
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedUnsafe object reference (IDOR) in Stel Order v3.25.1 and earlier versions, specifically in the ‘/app/FrontController’ endpoint, through manipulation of the ‘employeeID’ parameter. An authenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability to access information about any employee (first names, last names, roles, job titles, and vacation records, among others) by modifying that identifier in requests sent to the server.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThis is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in Stel Order v3.25.1 where the /app/FrontController endpoint fails to validate user authorization when accessing the employeeID parameter. An authenticated attacker can manipulate this parameter to access sensitive employee records (names, roles, titles, vacation data) belonging to other users without proper access controls.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify Stel Order versionLocate and inspect the installed Stel Order version file, about page, or application header to confirm the exact version numberAffected if Running version 3.25.1 exactly, as this is the only version listed as affected
-
Confirm /app/FrontController endpoint existsAttempt to access or map the /app/FrontController endpoint in the applicationAffected if The endpoint is present and responds to requests
-
Identify employeeID parameter availabilityReview application traffic, API documentation, or test the endpoint with an employeeID parameter to confirm it accepts this inputAffected if The endpoint accepts and processes an employeeID parameter
-
Test for unauthorized data accessWith an authenticated session, submit a request to /app/FrontController with an employeeID value different from your own user account to see if sensitive employee records (names, roles, titles, vacation data) are returned without authorization failureAffected if The application returns employee data for a different employeeID without rejecting the request based on ownership or permissions
If running Stel Order v3.25.1 and the /app/FrontController endpoint accepts an employeeID parameter that returns other employees sensitive records without proper authorization checks, the environment is affected by this IDOR vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement proper authorization checks to verify the authenticated user has permission to access the requested employee resource before returning any data; consider using indirect references or adding role-based access control (RBAC) to the endpoint.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5798 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-5798 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data